In the absence of a family history of people dying from cancer that became terminal before it produced any symptoms (my situation), methinks that the use of possibly-reversible chemical castration may be wise and appropriate.

In the absence of forms of inner gender conflict that push a person toward suicidality or other personal/biological issues which make chemical castration more likely to be life-endangering than simple bilateral orchiectomy, methinks that the use of possibly-reversible chemical castration may be wise and appropriate.

Were I, in my licensed capacity as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, to deem anything actually and objectively wrong, it would be using measures of central tendency based frequentist statistical methodologies for determining what is best for every person.

I am autistic, and I have that form of autism which has always, since I was born, if not also before i was born, effectively shielded me from internalizing the social conventions of deception and dishonesty that are the essential, shattering, brain-traumatizing essence of the infant-child transition and/or the infant-child discontinuity (a discontinuity because it results in some form of amnesia for pre-discontinuity life experiences).

Yes, "essential... essence" is redundant, and is purposefully so.

No one has ever been able to teach me to be ashamed of any aspect of my life, though I experience the affective condition named "shame," as best I can observe, about as intensely as anyone else does.

No one has ever been able to teach me to believe that I, or anyone, or anything, can ever actually be guilty with respect to any behavior, conduct, action, outcome, or any other aspect of existence; I find guilt to be a purely delusional human social evolution blunder which has always been unavoidable when it happens.

No one has ever been able to teach me to believe that "it would have been better" had some event which actually happened actually happened differently than it actually happened.

Put me on a jury in a trial in the U.S.A., and I will always find everyone perfectly innocent, regardless of whatever testimony is presented in court, doing so because I actually understand how and why guilt is merely a tragically addictive, socially ruinous, falsehood in the form of a hateful delusion.

Ridiculous?

I will rejoice if anyone can actually demonstrate that guilt is other than a delusion. I will rejoice if anyone can actually demonstrate that it is actually possible to make an actually avoidable mistake. I will rejoice if anyone can actually demonstrate that adversarial jurisprudence is in any way whatsoever, actually just.

What would it take for such an actual demonstration to occur?

First of all, actually demonstrate the actual making of an actual mistake. (Please note that I find no hint of any definition of mistake in which a mistake can be made with fully-informed deliberate intent, since mistake and fully-informed deliberate intent are mutually exclusive, and, therefore, purely dichotomous, constructs.) Next, having actually demonstrated the mistake being made and having been made, demonstrate that it was actually avoidable by demonstrating that it actually did not happen after demonstrating that it actually did happen.

The belief that avoidable mistakes happen was, I find, named "time confusion" by Erik H. Erikson and was named "imprisonment of the mind" by neurologist Robert C.Scaer.

I observe that believing in guilt as other than a tragically addictive and destructive delusion imprisons the mind of anyone and everyone so believing in some form of a prison of hatred of the actual, directly-observable process of existence itself.

In these days, conception appears to me to be a lethal event. If death is to be prevented, life must first be prevented.

I further observe that life is made of death as death is made of life, and life and death are one and the same. To fear death, as to seek death, is to fear life, and I cannot be taught to do that.

For being so profoundly autistic as to be incapable of being taught and/or learning to fear life, my personal innermost gratitude plausibly transcends all infinitudes of infinities.

For me, doing chemical castration prior to my bilateral orchiectomy would have been a form of suicide attempt, given my understanding, since tragically and profoundly validated by my brother's terminal cancer experience, of my familial cancer risk predicament and its optimal, surgical minimization.

So, I leave to conscience of the individual person the choices of how to live, as I have never encountered, nor been able to imagine, any better way of making choices.

Wolf-Pup (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:39 am But each person's point of view shades their perceptions. My wanting to tread cautiously with newcomers to the site may be vastly different than another senior member's approach. To ourselves what we think is the right course of action to help the newbie may seem completely wrong to the other person.

Some people may think jumping into a chemical castration trial is the best thing to do in all situations, I would think that is wrong. However who is to say for certain as we aren't doctors. I'm more interested in learning as much about the person as possible before suggesting methods. If it is a woman/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/man asking in terms of another person, then it is even more crucial to find out all we can about the situation they are in, and proceed accordingly.

While "we are not doctors" is a reasonable surmise, I am a real doctor, though I am not a licensed physician nor licensed surgeon. I have a piece of portable wallpaper on which is printed, "Doctor of Philosophy in Bioengineering"...

The word, "doctor" is a Latin word, meaning "teacher," and is closely associated with the Latin verb, "docere," or, in English, the verb, "to teach."

I deem it an unconscionable atrocity for physicians to act as mere medical technologist automatons (diagnostic manual jockeys?) who conformally map clinical signs onto pharmaceutical industry profits, while concurrently claiming to be actual doctors.

In much the same manner, I deem it an unconscionable atrocity for legislators, lawyers, and judges to concoct a system of laws which they coercively impose on others while themselves being incapable of knowing or understanding the law they coercively impose on others. The present system of adversarial law and jurisprudence in the U.S.A. is a cartel of interlocking directorates of deceptions compounded by deceptions compounded by deceptions, and has been so throughout the whole of word-form-recorded human history which I have yet been able to find.

I find no fault with people who have succumbed to shatteringly deceptive coercion into becoming shattered and deceptive as their only alternative to one or another form of suicide.

Suicide has been calling out to me, for essentially the whole of my life, "Let me in!"

And my reply has, so far, always been, "No, but thanks for the invitation, which I respectfully decline."

Was it Bob Dylan who put it, "Whoever is not busy being born is busy dying."?

..................

janekane (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:13 pm . So, when someone shows up here in the role of an "internet troll," what the person posts is likely to be a very indirectly told form of truth, and may be so indirect as to be undecipherable and incomprehensible to the person posting as to anyone else who reads such a post.

Alas. "troll postings" can be very, very destructive to "Internet communities" like this one.

So, I leave to the administrators to decide who does or does not "belong" here, and what posts are properly deleted or allowed to stay.

And I do not assume that anyone here is actually dishonest, though I have often observed that being truthful, and/or being truthfully understood, can be astonishingly difficult at times.

I like your view and presentation. However, nobody (administrators included) really knows what/who is fake. The administrators frequently act based on their bias; the only thing which makes them different is that they have the power to decide what is acceptable to them.

janekane (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:20 pm On reading through this thread one more time, something caught my attention, the first sentence of the initial post, to wit:

If that statement really is right, then it is not subjective, because it would be an objective fact that

Wolf-Pup (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:13 pm there

janekane (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:20 pm is no real right or wrong as it is subjective;

and the statement contradicts itself.

Why, why, did I study philosophy as a college student; why did I take a philosophy class in formal logic?

Why, why, why, did I learn to design digital logic circuits that actually worked; as doing that required that I understand formal logic way

beyond what I learned in that philosophy logic class...

I would think your Psychology degree would make you much more interested with the fact that he started the sentence with "Actually".

Elizabeth

Mac (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:10 am I like your view and presentation. However, nobody (administrators included) really knows what/who is fake. The administrators frequently act based on their bias; the only thing which makes them different is that they have the power to decide what is acceptable to them.

Yeah, that's what you say.

I think that they know what they are doing, and that they do it well. I.P. numbers tell a lot...

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:20 pm I would think your Psychology degree would make you much more interested with the fact that he started the sentence with "Actually".

Elizabeth

Oh, dear!

Actually, my bachelor's degree and doctorate are in bioengineering, and the doctoral thesis was an engineering approach to one of the plausibly-most-intransigent of identified psychology problems; to do the thesis work, and to get my committee to approve my dissertation, I needed to demonstrate understanding of scientific psychology at way beyond the usual level needed for a psychology doctorate.

And, as is easily observed, I actually began the prior sentence with "Actually,".

I did so the better to actually illustrate the possibility that the realm of right and wrong may actually be an objective, and not merely a subjective, realm. Actually!

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:27 pm Yeah, that's what you say.

I think that they know what they are doing, and that they do it well. I.P. numbers tell a lot...

Actually, I have provided the Archive Administrators with my "legal name," my Professional Engineer license number, my address, and access to my dissertation, which, if one knows where to look, is actually posted on the Internet. And I know that I.P. addresses, which are readily available to the Administrators, can be very informative regarding who is pretending and who is not. To further make clear to the Administrators that I am not "playing tricks" here, I went to the 2011 MoM. I plan, circumstances permitting, to be at the 2012 MoM, and would welcome meeting anyone and everyone who comes to it.

While I have no plan to ever post on the Archive other than with the name, "janekane," this is the one and only place where I have ever used, or ever plan to use, it. I do so out of respect for people who may experience occupational and/or social disadvantage were their "legal name" made public with respect to their Archive activities.

i hate to be a party pooper, but before id go to any length to provide alot of info i would make sure somehow that the wife is a real female. there has been alot of fantasy players just getting off listening to people here with no intentions of castration. just fantasy

Rooster17 (imported) wrote: Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:12 am i hate to be a party pooper, but before id go to any length to provide alot of info i would make sure somehow that the wife is a real female. there has been alot of fantasy players just getting off listening to people here with no intentions of castration. just fantasy

Yes there many fantasy players, and there are also too many which would try to fabricate anything to shut the down the eunuch.org.

There many medical effects of chemical castration which may not be fully revisable, and varies greatly individually and in all cases is a length of use issue. Trying out chemical castration has some risks of sterility and hypogonadism. As long as all parties understand the risks before hand, what is the problem.

_g

hmm. bioengineering. I wonder if that could ever give people animal traits.